ctembreull

I know I said I was done. Fine. I lied. I have a fundamental issue with allowing blatant logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions about international law, sovereignty, and the rights of nations pass by unassailed.

Without overloading you with links and statistics, I invite you to browse the online forums at lucianne.com and at freerepublic.com. You'll find all the corroborating evidence you require.

Rather like the infrastructure in a large percentage of America. How does age signify neglect? But you can't claim that we didn't purposefully destroy vast quantities of Iraq's infrastructure, knocking out water and power to thousands and thousands of citizens who previously had both.

Feh, you get your proof and you say it's not good enough? Halliburton did receive a no-bid contract worth hundreds of millions. That's fact. Halliburton's qualifications for the job are a red herring. But since you insist on more, here's a few more links:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...liburton_x.htm

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/am...s/032803a.html (syndicates an Agence France Presse report)
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/n...ve/5972319.htm (syndicates an Associated Press report)

That enough for you? Halliburton received the contract without having to bid for it.

Just because you think the Iraqis are free, does not mean it's true. Their political expression is being suppressed. Their mineral wealth is being exploited. That is not freedom. We have removed Iraq's government, but we have not freed its people. Your argument, in any case, is a red herring. America was dragged into this war on the backs of claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead, ask for proof, if you like. The freedom of Iraqis is an ad populem, an attempt to divert the public's attention from the lack of WMD evidence by appealing to other emotions (e.g. sympathy, patriotism, etc.). To claim that our invasion was justified because the Iraqis are now "free" is simply to state that the ends justify the means, and that holds no water.

Just so. Freedom includes political expression. It's just that simple. From your attitude, I can safely infer that you're in favor of banning unpopular speech and unpopular political expression anywhere. There's a word for that: totalitarianism. Hey look! Saddam repressed political speech he didn't like, and so do we! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...


You don't solve the problem of civilian deaths by causing ten thousand more of them. I do - and have - supported action within the framework of international law. Had the United Nations stated that an invasion was legitimate and required, I would have been disappointed but I would have held my peace. Instead, we acted in contravention of established international law and in doing so, killed thousands of innocent people. I'd love to know how exactly you consider that justified, or even good.


*Ahem* Kuwait. But notably not North Korea. Hmm...

Formal logic states that nobody can prove a negative; an argument which claims a theorem to be true simply because nobody can prove it wrong is a fallacy. It has been stated that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction because he has not proven that he does not. This is a logical fallacy and is a piss-poor justification for a war of aggression which violates the sovereignty of a state. You and every other hawk out there can scream until you're blue in the face about how Saddam has to prove it; this doesn't change the cold, hard fact that the entire basis for the war rested upon a logical fallacy that a first-year college student should know to avoid.

"No principle of international law is more critical than that of state sovereignty. This means that states have not any authority above them and that any state may do within their borders whatever they desire. Sovereignty also means that states are the one that confers power, in a voluntary way, to the international organisations they have decided to join.
The principle of sovereignty and the right of independence guarantee states autonomy in their internal and external affairs. Thus, sovereignty, independence and the principle of non-interference form the basis for the international rule of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. They also feed the UN principle of prohibition of the use of force against other states' territorial integrity or political independence." -- Dr. Ivan Martinez

"Independent sovereign countries are only able to do what they want as long as they don't piss off the rest of the world. When they do, "sovereign" means exactly jack shit." By your logic, Canada has license to invade the United States. China was justified in annexing Tibet, and would be justified in annexing Taiwan. And Saddam was justified in annexing Kuwait. The Soviet Union would have been justified in nuking the United States and the rest of NATO into a faintly glowing pile of dust; they had more nukes and more troops, after all. And for that matter, their invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly within their rights. Each and every one of these cases are examples or hypotheses of the larger dealing with the smaller as it wishes. Nobody is above international law.

Oh, so the basis of your entire argument, then, is that might makes right. Piss off the 800-pound gorilla and you're dead. That's nothing more than ignorant, small-minded, jingoistic bullshit. But let's apply your theorem to domestic policy, shall we? The largest and strongest takes what it wants when it wants. Oops. There go basic civil rights for minorities and women. There go voting rights for non-landowners in general.

Oops.

Who knows, though. If things continue apace, we may just wind up with the nasty, brutish, all-for-me-and-fuck-the-other-guy world you so clearly dream of. Enjoy it; it's the world you made.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!